Posted on 09/03/2004 2:35:34 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Just weeks ago, California's secretary of state was on a rising political trajectory that had some people whispering his name as a possible Democratic contender for governor.
Kevin Shelley now finds himself the target of state and federal investigations, fighting to save his reputation and some of the reforms he pushed for the November election.
He faces scrutiny on three fronts. State and federal agencies are investigating contributions to his 2002 campaign to determine whether taxpayer money was illegally funneled to his election bid.
Meanwhile, the state is auditing how his office spent federal election money amid allegations that he improperly steered thousands of dollars to Democratic allies.
At the same time, Shelley's quick-tempered nature has forced him to respond to claims that he berates and humiliates staff members.
The investigations have detracted from what should be his showcase moment - helping to ensure that California's 58 counties prepare to run problem-free elections in November. They also risk complicating Shelley's future political aspirations.
"The question now is whether the money issues will spill over and taint his credibility on other issues," said Tracy Westen, chief executive officer of the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonpartisan research organization in Los Angeles.
Shelley has denied wrongdoing related to his campaign contributions. He also defended his office's distribution of money from the federal Help America Vote Act.
In a statement to The Associated Press, Tony Miller, his coordinator for that program, said spending of the federal grant money was driven by the findings of an advisory committee that held several public hearings.
Shelley, 48, also acknowledged being a demanding boss. In a statement to reporters, he said he had "frequently expressed regret to people and have apologized for my sometimes pointed criticism" but that he never intended to humiliate.
Supporters cited his integrity as they are sticking by Shelley while the investigations play out.
He drew praise from both major parties for his neutral handling of last year's gubernatorial recall election and has gained national notoriety for his stance on electronic voting, pushing for backup paper ballots and safeguards to ensure accuracy.
"When somebody proves to me that Kevin Shelley intentionally, knowingly or should have known that he did something wrong, that's one thing. But to me, it's a feeding frenzy, papers trying to outdo each other," Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, a fellow San Francisco Democrat, told reporters.
The scrutiny began last month when a San Francisco Chronicle report questioned whether taxpayer money was funneled illegally into Shelley's 2002 run for the statewide seat.
The newspaper reported that Shelley, while leader of the Assembly's majority Democrats in 2000, helped arrange a $500,000 state grant for the nonprofit group of Julie Lee, a political ally in San Francisco.
Lee, a volunteer fund-raiser for Shelley, used the grant money to pay tens of thousands of dollars to several people, ostensibly for work related to construction of the nonprofit's San Francisco Neighbors Resource Center, the paper reported. The center was never built.
In turn, several recipients of that money contributed to Shelley's campaign in amounts nearly identical to the checks they received from the nonprofit.
The FBI and the state attorney general's office are investigating, while the state controller's office has begun an audit.
Shelley's campaign spokesman, Sam Singer, said the secretary never suspected the contributions might be illegal and immediately asked for an investigation once they were questioned. Shelley also returned $125,000 in contributions to the state and placed another $80,000 in an escrow account with the controller's office.
"The secretary has stated that he never has and he never will accept a tainted, inappropriate or illegal contribution," Singer said. "He knew nothing about the allegations surrounding these contributions. Otherwise, he never would have accepted them in the first place."
It's a "difficult chapter," in Shelley's career, Singer said, but he's not guilty of any wrongdoing.
Still, some wonder how a political veteran such as Shelley wouldn't know the source of contributions as large as $25,000 or $50,000.
"If you're an officeholder and you get a $25,000 contribution, you're going to want to know who it is and you're going to want to thank them and probably have a phone call with them," said Westen, of the Center for Governmental Studies. "Wouldn't you say, 'Who are these people; why are they giving to me?'"
Separately, a legislative committee has launched an audit into how Shelley spent money from the federal Help America Vote Act, which is intended to improve voting procedures and outreach across the country.
A San Jose Mercury News report said Shelley directed about $500,000 in funds to former campaign workers and Democratic operatives.
Republican Assemblyman Dave Cox of Fair Oaks asked for the audit, concerned the money may have gone to Democratic consultants for questionable voter outreach efforts and was used to produce television ads, T-shirts and other items promoting Shelley.
"No one is surprised that someone who is responsible for the funds is saying that everything was proper, but the assertions are different, and from that standpoint it cried out for an audit," Cox said.
Earlier this week, the state froze nearly $18 million until the audit was completed. That raised fears among county election officers that they would not be able to implement reforms in time for the November elections.
State and county officials are now negotiating to release money for the most pressing needs.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation, said Shelley's troubles won't affect the reform efforts he had pushed nationwide but feared they could delay some of those efforts in California.
"There are some specific security concerns for this election that need to be met with this money," she said.
Shelley ain't goin' no where.
No where good at any rate.
SFS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.